Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

Vinoya v.

G.R. 126586.
August 25, 2000.
FACTS: This case involves a motion for reconsideration filed by private respondent Regent
Food Corporation (RFC), of the decision ordering RFC to reinstate petitioner Alexander Vinoya
to his former position and pay him backwages. The Court found that RFC was the rightful
employer of petitioner under the four-fold test of employer-employee relations, contrary to RFCs
claim that Vinoya was actually an employee of the PMCI. RFC now claims that reinstatement is
no longer feasible due to the parties strained relations.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner Vinoya is entitled to reinstatement?
HELD: No. As a general rule, strained relations is an issue factual in nature and should be
raised and proved before the Labor Arbiter. In this case, the strained relations arose only after
the filing of the case. The issue of strained relations was never dealth with in the decision being
reconsidered. The Court finds that it would be impractical to reinstate petitioner to his former
position as such position as sales representative involves the handling of accounts and other
property of RFC. Therefore, in lieu of reinstatement, payment of separation pay equivalent to
one months salary for every year of service is granted.
Vinoya vs. National Labor Relation Commission
Labor -

Vinoya applied and was accepted onmay 1990, as a sales representative by RFC on the same date was issued an i.d vinoya alleges that he was under direct
control and supervision plant manager and senior salesman of PRC.
On july 1991, vinoya was transferred by RFC to PMCI, an agency which provides RFC with additional contractual workers pursuant to a contract for supply of
manpower services after his transfer. He was re assigned to RFC as sales representative. Subsequently on nov. 1991, he was informed by RFC that his services
were terminated and he was asked to surrender his i.d. card.
Dec, 1991, vinoya filed a case of illegal dismissal and non.payment of 13th moth pay before the labor arbiter.
PMCI was initial imp leaded as one of the respondents, but vinoya withdrew his charge against PMCI and bought/pursued his claim solely against RFC.
Subsequently, RFC filed a 3rd party complaint against PMCI.
RFC is guilty of illegal dismissal but denied 13th m. pay

RFC is the employer

PMCI is an independent contractor, guilty of illegal dismissal. Ordered payment of 13th month pay.

Whether petitioner was an employment of RFC or PMCI.
Status of PMCI (whether it is a independent contractor or labor-only contractor
Elements of labor-only
1. Have substantial capital to perform the job work or service on its own acct. and responsibility
1,000,000 stock
75,000 in paid
= not enough
Workers assigned by PMCI to RFC, the ______ has the control
Doesnt perform and specific job or service
Merely supplies RFC with EES
Sales reps are directly related to the business of RFC
Granting PMCI is an independent contractor
Petitioner is not included in the list to be assigned to RFC
RFC carried out the 4 _____ test.
1.) Power to hire
I.D. issued is sufficient for a proof
PET is with RFC prior contract
2.) Payment of wages
funds came from RFC
although coursed through PMCI
3.) Power of control
RFC admitted
- PET is under the direct control of RFC personnel
4.) Power to Dismiss
Contract states that RFC has the power to dismiss
Whether petitioner was illegally dismissed?
Due to his length of service, acquired _ tams of reg EE.

Thus may only be dismissed upon compliance of legal reqs: for dismissal.
Two fold reqs:
1. Substantial
2. Procedural

Expiration of contracts is not one of the

The grounds allowed by law
No notice of impending dismissal


Decision and reso of NLRC are annulled and set aside

Labor arbiter decision is reinstated